2008 (7) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er : Arijit Pasayat, J.]. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi (in short the `Tribunal'). In the appeal before the Tribunal challenge was made by three appellants i.e. the present appellant and two of its partners to the adjudication order dated 15.6.1999 passed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing total penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.80,000/- against the appellant firm and Rs.10,000/- each against the two partners for alleged violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short the `Act'). 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: A Show Cause Notice (in short `SCN') No. T-4/340/D/94-SCN/DD/8097 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....but to change such document delivery to new buyer M/s Roman -Inc., 100, Park Plaza Drives. The authorized dealer/banker instead of sending the requested communication dated 16/17th April, 1992, to the correct office of the foreign bank, sent it to a wrong place and that is why the title documents were wrongly handed over despite clear instructions to the contrary whereby the consignment was delivered to original consignee M/s Rose Carpets. In this way, the appellants cannot be held guilty of the non-realisation of the export proceeds of PP No. AA-677411 dated 2.4.1992 inasmuch as that the wrong delivery, despite appellant's timely action, cannot only be attributed to the authorized dealer against whom the appellants are pursuing their remed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roceeds within six months the export proceeds have not been repatriated even long after. No extension from RBI was obtained either, so the impugned order is perfectly correct and requires to be maintained. 5. So far as the consignment dated 2.4.1992 is concerned, the Tribunal accepted the stand of the appellants before it and exonerated them. It was noted, however, by the Tribunal that the appellants did not place any material so far as the repatriation of Rs.2,93,338/- relating to goods exported by PP-576895 dated 13.5.1991 and no arguments was advanced in the facts of the individual liability of the partners. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the appellants have been rightly held as guilty for having committed violatio....